With a few exceptions, none of you know me in real life. Therefore it's a little bit hard to honestly express my undying love for the Batman comics, shows, toys, and of course the movies. After watching Batman Begins on opening night and finding out The Joker was going to be in the next movie, I literally broke out in goosebumps. You know the feeling you get when you see your favourite band in concert? That's the feeling I get when I see The Joker on the big screen. To be perfectly honest, this is the "movie" of my life. This is the do all and end all of films. This tops any movie I've ever seen, and is essentially the ultimate dream of myself and millions of comic fans around the world. I appreciate Tim Burton's attempt at the rivalry between the two, but Nolan's 'Joker vs Batman' is the best match up I've ever seen in my life. It's going to be hard to review this film without rambling on like a 13-year-old fan boy, but bear with me folks, I have your best interests in mind.

Where to begin. We've all seen Batman Begins, and we know what the movie was about, and how it ended. If you saw it in theatres like I did, I'm sure you jumped for joy when The Joker card was revealed in the final moments. Three years later, we comic fans finally get what we've been craving. Just moments after the opening credits we're treated to The Joker's (Ledger) minions robbing the Gotham City Bank. After a slick getaway, we find out that The Joker has become a real menace - for both Gotham's finest and the mob. In a brief conversation between Lieutenant Gordon and Batman (Oldman and Bale, respectively) we find out that The Joker has been hitting up mob banks all over Gotham, stealing their cash before the police can get to it. At the same time, Gotham's newest District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), is starting his crusade against the mob bosses and corrupt officers as the city's "White Knight". Just to complicate things, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) has moved beyond Bruce and fallen in love with Dent. While Batman struggles with his love for Rachel and passing the torch onto Dent so he can finally have a normal life, he is plagued by his guilt. It would seem The Joker has devised a plan to rid Gotham of Batman once and for all. Until Batman removes his mask and reveals who he truly is, the maniacal madman will kill a person every day. He's a man of his word.

All fanboyism aside - seem to be using that word far too frequently - Heath Ledger's performance as the Clown Prince of Crime is the most charismatic and perfectly played character I've ever seen. Everything from the weird facial expressions, fantastically delivered lines and of course, the maniacal cackle of an insidious madman were all spot on. Until now, Nicholson's Joker was considered to be the best, but I think it's high time he step aside and pass this title on to someone far more deserving. There are a lot of rumours circulating a potential Oscar nomination for Ledger's performance. Oddly enough, I could see him winning it. At first I couldn't believe he won the role - in fact, I was downright mad - but after finally watching the movie 2 years after the announcement I couldn't be happier. Nolan is a fantastic director, and knew he'd found the right man for the job in Ledger.

Ledger isn't the only one who pulls off a great performance. Gary Oldman is yet again, a perfect choice for the role of Gordon. I never once see him as anyone but the idealistic, hard working man that Gordon is. Eckhart also did a fine job as Dent. I was a little sceptical at first, but after watching the movie a few times, I think he did a fantastic job portraying the character's fall from grace. Pity he didn't receive a whole lot of screen time as Two Face, but what he did get was excellent.

As far as behind the camera, Nolan has proved yet again that he is one of the few people who "gets" Batman. Being able to combine a comic book world with the real world is no easy task, but he somehow pulls it off. There are some fantastic visuals in this film, and some really great action sequences. A personal favourite is the chase sequence that happens mid-film, and involves The Joker, Batman, Dent and some of Gotham City's finest. Nolan also did a great job of layering this movie so that there's more to it with each viewing. It's a comic book movie, but it can also be so much more. It constantly tests the morality of mankind, and The Joker, while completely insane, never stops testing Batman's limits. I've already seen it a few times, but I know that this is a movie I could never get tired of seeing. All the pieces come together nicely, everyone does a great job, and it's just a shame that Ledger won't be around to play the role again. I could not have asked for a better Joker.

This isn't to say the movie didn't have its problems. Even though Bale's Bruce Wayne is spot-on, he leaves something to be desired in the Batman department. He's good, but there's times where he just bothers me. I can appreciate him going for that "dark and menacing" voice, but it just always seems like he's out of breath and gasping for air. Small point, but this is Batman after all. Also, there seemed to be a few too many one-liners for my taste. Almost everything Lucius Fox and Alfred said was some sort of jab to make the audience laugh, and the police officer in the SWAT van transporting Dent made me want to puke. There were a few small editing problems I noticed, but aside from that this movie was excellent.

This is the most well deserved perfect I've ever given, and should essentially knock all my past 10/10's down a few notches. I'm 21 years old, and I think my movie watching career has peaked. I could not wish for a better movie, and I don't imagine I'll ever see one. Might just be the fan boy in me, but I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. Two and a half hours in length, and not a minute too long. It's rare that a movie can keep me so glued for that amount of time. So if you haven't already, get out soon and see the one movie this year that's guaranteed to put a smile on that face.

There are reasons to applaud "The Dark Knight". What director Christopher Nolan has done is take the "Batman" franchise and focus it more on crime and punishment than any of the old comic book mainstays. The film features some stunning visuals, some amazing performances and an intriguing and involving plot that does not confuse the audience. You might have read some other reviews that have pretty much said the same thing. But, they have also called "The Dark Knight" the best film of the year and the greatest comic book film ever made - a bold statement, by anyone's admission. This I cannot agree with. What I loved about "The Dark Knight" is partially what makes it a flawed film. Christopher Nolan's obsession with turning "Batman" into a realistic and more humanized protagonist kind of takes a lot of the whimsy and wonder out of the whole franchise. Personally, I love the fact that the film felt more Martin Scorsese than Sam Raimi - that's one of the reasons that I enjoyed "Batman Begins" - but I kept getting the sense that Nolan was maybe trying a little too hard to make "Batman" more believable. Guess what - he's a comic book superhero who lives in a city called Gotham - you can toss believability out the window. But, don't get me wrong - I enjoyed "The Dark Knight". It is one of the finer executed comic book films I have seen, but I think it has been somewhat over-hyped and it does not live up to the now impossible standards set forth by critics all over the country and beyond.

We find Batman (Christian Bale) protecting a Gotham that thinks of him more as a crazed vigilante than anything else. Alfred (Michael Caine) is still keeping him in one piece, while Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) is running Wayne Enterprises like a champ. Bruce's former fling, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is now dating Gotham's new district attorney, the fabulous Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), whom all of Gotham - including Lieutenant James Gordon (Gary Oldman) - thinks will help raise Gotham out of the crime infested slums and restore peace and order. Enter Joker (Heath Ledger), a sadistic madman who promises the mob he will kill Batman for half of their funds. A game of cat and mouse ensues between Joker, Batman and the people of Gotham, with Joker constantly testing the moral foundations of all involved. Joker promises he will kill people daily until Batman turns himself in and removes his mask, revealing his true identity. There are some elaborate, but understandable, plot revelations and plot progressions in the film that keep things more than interesting, and it's always nice to see just how Joker is going to handle a situation or keep his efforts moving along. Eric Roberts co-stars as Salvatore Maroni, a crime boss; and Anthony Michael Hall stars as television reporter Mike Engel. By the end of the film, the line between hero and villains seems to have been blurred somewhat.

Let's start out with the positive. Heath Ledger. Believe it or not, he's every bit as good in the film as everyone has been saying. He takes Joker and injects so much life and so much venom into him that he's impossible not to watch. Ledger tackles the role with a sinister whimsy that is sometimes hysterical and sometimes frightening. I don't know that he deserves Academy Award consideration, but I won't be protesting if he receives it. Even stronger a performance comes from Gary Oldman as Lieutenant Gordon. Oldman's role in "Batman Begins" was so miniaturized that it was nice to get to see him really go at it here. He gets some of the strongest emotional scenes in the picture. Aaron Eckhart is also very affective as Harvey Dent, who becomes Two-Face. Eckhart brilliantly shows the downward spiral from decent, hard-working civil activist to jaded, murderous villain. The visuals of the film are also stunning, at times. I loved the chase sequence that comes towards the middle of the film, and I loved the famed hospital explosion towards the end. Nolan overwhelms the senses here and never lets up for a moment with the action. The music, by the always phenomenal Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard, is pounding throughout and makes a real impression. And, finally, the camerawork by Wally Pfister is inventive and makes a nice picture throughout. There is a lot to admire about this motion picture.

Now, here comes the negative. Christian Bale. First off, I still don't buy him as Batman. His Bruce Wayne is boring and bland and he delivers his lines with all the emotion one would expect from Bill Pullman in the role. His Batman looks like an action figure and sounds like he has tuberculosis - like Harrison Ford from "Air Force One". Did someone not listen to Christian Bale's Batman voice and think, "Ouch. Not good"? I also have a very difficult time with the fact that, evidently, Batman can fall ten stories or get shot and be as spruce as a goose, but can't handle a couple of dogs? Batman receives more damage from dogs in this film that he does any of the other conventional villains. And, when Harvey Dent catches fire - does Batman really not know how to put the man's head out before it burns him all the way to the bone? If Batman's afraid of dogs and can't put out a fire, what good is he to Gotham in the first place? I also had a problem with Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes. On the whole, I suppose she was better than Katie Holmes, but she has absolutely no chemistry with either Bale or Eckhart and she plays the role one-note throughout. And what was with Nicky Katt during the chase scene, right before the helicopter crash, spitting out those cheesy one-liners and ruining any tension that was being built?

The biggest issue is that Christopher Nolan wanted to make Batman more realistic and a more humanized superhero. Fine. But you cannot take away everything that makes a superhero a superhero. I'm sorry, but Batman didn't seem very 'super' in this film. Luckily, we had Joker and Lieutenant Gordon to keep us interested and to offer some real emotion and some real conflict. "The Dark Knight" is a good film, and an entertaining film, but it floats on a suspended logic and constantly asks the audience to believe something simply because it's a comic book movie, even though the filmmakers go out of their way to try and make anything but a comic book movie. What's always separated Tim Burton's "Batman" from Christopher Nolan's "Batman" is the sense of whimsy and fantasy that Burton brought to Gotham and the characters. Once again, Nolan's version is not as strong as it could have been because it ignored those principles altogether. I want some whimsy when it comes to my comic book movie. I want some fantasy and some color. In the end, as much as I enjoyed "The Dark Knight", it's a mixed review from me, even though I know most of the audience out there will swoon. This one isn't as grand as you're hearing, but strong performances from Ledger and Oldman do make it definitely worth your while.

There are few movies that I would go to the midnight showing for, not because I'm not an avid fan but because I figured the movie will be around the next night and none of my friends like to ruin movies. However, being that I am a huge fan of not only Batman but his recent movies, I knew I had to get the first showing in anticipation of the Joker. Now, having seen it and gotten little sleep because of dreams about it, I can say that it just may be the contender for my favorite superhero movie of all time.

For the three of you that don't know the story for this one, let me flesh it out. The Joker (Heath Ledger) has become a rising star of a criminal in Gotham, a psychopath who kills his own henchmen and whomever he wants, either for chaos or his own ends. As he robs banks and destroys lives, Batman (Christian Bale) is doing his usual badassery against crime; however, some other people have decided to dress up in the caped crusader's outfit and fight crime in his name. This obviously angers Batman, for while they use force and guns, he is trying to make the streets safer and less violent. Meanwhile, Harvey Dent (played here by Aaron Eckert) is the new DA working just as hard (legally top-side) as Batman to bring justice to Gotham, but him and Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) are encountering fierce resistance from said criminals.

The Joker quickly becomes the crux to Gotham's criminal leadership, for he comes in on a meeting to not only doing a spectacularly gruesome magic trick but to inform them that he can destroy the one thing standing in all of their ways- the Dark Knight. Through much deliberation and struggle, the Joker becomes the obvious mastermind behind everything in Gotham. And it's always up to Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Batman to stop him.

What a roller coaster ride of a movie. It gets going immediately and never stops until the end. The action was amped up for this one; Batman Begins had a good amount of action but less flowing on-screen. This movie features full-out fistfights and gunfights between Batman and the villains. Not only that, but if you have seen the trailer, in which the Joker says "Come on, HIT ME!" I can tell you first-hand that the scenes leading up to and including that are probably my favorite action scenes since Iron Man.

But let's get to what everyone really wants to know: the acting. Let me assure everyone who reads this that Heath Ledger literally gave his life to perfect this character. He was absolutely incredible; you cannot tell for a second that it is him playing the Joker. He IS the Joker, through and through. Every mannerism, every line of dialogue is seething with malice, insanity, and chaos. With all due respect to Jack, because he started it all, I have to give the character entirely to Mr. Ledger. Saying otherwise is a falsehood. Now, to talk about everyone else. Most actors and actresses reprise their role, and of course naming them all would be too much. Let's just say that there is not one poorly cast person in the movie. Every single person is an incredible actor in their own right and did exactly what was asked of them. Eckert as Harvey Dent was a perfect choice. His transition from DA to...well, if you know the name you know the person, is expertly done.

I cannot possibly say more without ruining the movie for you. However, there is one small gripe. Remember how Bale uses a guttural growl when speaking as Batman? Yea, he emphasizes it more in this one, kind of giving a pseudo-comical feel when he's not kicking ass or yelling. However, it is a SMALL gripe because it didn't take away from the overall feel of the movie or hurt it at all. With all of this said, SEE THIS MOVIE ASAP!

(Can I give it higher than a 10? I want to.)

Recommended Movies

#1:
Nirrad
- added 07/18/2008, 11:38 PM
I agree with parts of both reviews. Bale's voice
annoys me. Some of the editing was weird in some
places, most noticeable during the bat bike scene.
And believe it or not, I expected a little more
from Ledger. Maybe a little darker, but then again
his performance is nothing short of amazing. Like
Bluemeanie said, I don't know if he deserves the
Academy Award, but if he did win it, it wouldn't
bother me. Oh, and I thought the first 30 minutes
or so were kinda lame and boring. There are a few
more problems, but those are easily overlooked or
have already been discussed. I'm not sure if I
want to give it a 9 or a 10. But it's still
awesome none the less.

#2:
Ginose
- added 07/19/2008, 12:33 AM
I would say that several moments sort of drug on,
but the fights were well done and alot of the plot
was appropriate. The effects were key, but Bale's
Batman voice made me want to stab my eyes out,
that and alot of the filming style was irritating
(especially the tunnel scene). All the
performances were good, amazing? No. Not at all.
Possibly Ledger's best performance, but I will NOT
say he was an excellent Joker. Heath played the
"new" Joker all the way home, but he
didn't "sweep me away" in his
performance, he was definately impressive but
over-shadowed by Eckhart who played Harvey Dent in
a way I didn't think anyone could, I'll be damned
if he doesn't make it to the sequal, regardless of
the ending (hell, how many villans can Nolan pull
out and still keep this half-stupid
"realistic"theme). I can't say I love
where Nolan has taken the franchise (in such a
direction that he will accept atmosphere and theme
to entertainment, logically depriving us from most
of the more outlandish villans in the series) but
I certainly can't hate it. It's just dark enough
for the Batman name and entertaining enough to
contiue being good action movies, but it'll never
try to be more than that. I, personally, am with
Billy Ray in that I'm sick of this idea of
"humanizing" the charecters to the point
that they aren't even their charecters anymore.
We've now got a standard psychotic-thug in the
place of the Joker and an emotionless blob as
Bruce Wayne... and a throat-cancer victim for
Batman...
Honestly, "Hellboy 2"
was much more fun. Maybe not the better of the
two, but I enjoyed it much more.

7.9/10

#3:
Luminaire
- added 07/20/2008, 10:22 AM
bluemeanie hit it right on the head as usual

#4:
Bliss From A Dead Embrace
- added 07/20/2008, 05:33 PM
This movie was epic. Batman begins was great but
it wasn't entirely a batman movie. It was more
Bruce Waynes transition to batman. This movie was
100% batman and rather then spending time getting
to know the main characters, Wayne/Gordon/Alfred
you got to see batman in action. Anything I could
say about Ledger as the Joker has been said. He
was perfect. Harvey Dent/Two Face was good for his
role and served his purpose. The action was
intense, the fight scenes were viciuos and fast
and gave a real feel to them. Its nice to see a
batman movie where he gets his hands dirty and
busts some skulls. Bale's voice didn't bother me.
It could be better but I think it also adds to the
character. Bruce waynes a well known guy so batman
needs his voice to be diffrent. Would a guy
fighting crime with his bare hands care what he
sounded like? As long as it got the job done I
don't think he would. My only concern is who they
will get to play the joker next. His characters
alive and after all the chaos he caused in this
movie I think it would kind of suck for the next
movie to pick up with some crap saying he died in
jail. Then again that might be better then having
someone else fuck the character up. Maybe they
will leave his character locked up for the next
movie and search for a new one. Either way, this
movie was epic, badass, thought provoking, dark
and thrilling. 10/10

#5:
Edd
- added 07/21/2008, 09:01 AM
I was blown away by the film, and only have one
gripe. It's becoming more evident that Bale cannot
be an accurate or convincing Bruce Wayne. Whether
or not it was the movie itself not really showing
off Bruce in his billionaire playboy environment,
or him just not really giving his all, he still
can't do it. 8/10

#6:
The Red Clover
- added 07/22/2008, 01:03 AM
I'm really disappointed that anyone would dare
have the gull to say that Christian Bale can't
play a convincing Batman or Bruce Wayne. Compared
to the last three actors who attempted to pull it
off I would say Christian Bale is, by far, the
best. Humanizing the role of Batman is bringing it
back to the comics considering the comic book of
Batman was to humanize the role of your standard
superhero. He's not supposed to be whimsical or
fantastic, he's a cunning individual with tons of
training and a tragic background. Those of you who
would demean Ledger's performance by suggesting
he's nothing more then a "psychotic
thug" or "this and that" really
have no idea who the Joker was in the first place.
The Joker WAS nothing more then a psychotic thug
and Ledger played him an absolute tee. And for
those of you who would call Bale's performance as
"emotionless" you watch your parents get
shot and see how "emotionless" you seem
when you look in the mirror. Considering the story
and background Christian Bale is perfect.

If you know your comics, this movie is a
10/10.

PS: Ledger is a superior Joker
when compared to Nicholson. If you want campy then
call Burton but I prefer my comic-book movies with
a bit of canon and just a smidgen of good
acting.

#8:
Luminaire
- added 07/22/2008, 08:28 AM
Bruce Wayne's parents were killed when he was a
child, so props to the kid they had playing Bruce
Wayne, because he acted with emotion. NOT
CHRISTIAN BALE.

#9:
The Red Clover
- added 07/22/2008, 01:26 PM
Michael Keaton is a hack compared to Christian
Bale because Michael Keaton had the unfortunate
circumstance of starring in a Tim Burton film.
It's amusing how a fan of the comics would prefer
the campy crap that's been produced pre-Nolan. Are
you even familiar with the concept of Bruce Wayne
becoming "Batman" and "Bruce
Wayne" becoming more of a costume compared to
his attire as Batman? Are either of you even aware
of the psychological motivation behind Christian
Bale's so called, "emotionless
performance?"

And I'm sorry,
but Christian Bale has set the standard for what
the role of Batman requires and is by far the best
there is when it comes to the role of Bruce Wayne
and Batman.

#11:
bluemeanie
- added 07/23/2008, 12:02 AM
Yes...the end...but not for you, sir. Christian
Bale is lifeless. A blank slate. Sorry, but it's
true. If you can honestly say Christian Bale
showed any real emotion or range in "The Dark
Knight", then you have zero concept of either
term. Sorry, but it's true. Michael Keaton was
the perfect Batman because he portrayed Batman as
a tortured hero. I could see the torture in
Keaton's eyes. I cannot in Bale's. And just
because you think Burton is a hack, doesn't mean
he is, let me assure you. No offense to Chris
Nolan, but go watch "The Prestige" and
see just how much Burton has even influenced him.
Burton's Batman worked best because it kept the
flash and the comic book feel of the comic book,
but still had Burton's insanely original imagery.

Now, the end...

#12:
The Red Clover
- added 07/23/2008, 03:13 AM
Lol. No, it's been the end since you started
trying to prove me wrong and failing utterly at it
might I add. Are you sure you're a film critic
because if so where do I sign up because
apparently it's not that hard of a job
considering. It's been the end the moment you
suggested you were a fan of the comics and ignore
the realism that was supposed to be in the first
four but was neglected, horribly.

No.
Burton isn't a hack because I merely believe he is
because that would suggest I have some sort of
complex where all I say is true. He's a hack
because my sixteen year old brother could direct a
better movie then he could. Burton should stick
with the animated films, anything else he's out of
his league and facts speak for themselves -- Nolan
outdid Burton, period and Bale outdid Keaton,
period, and Ledger outdid Nicholson by leaps and
bounds, period. :D Keep your opinion, Burton and
Keaton but as a TRUE fan I'll sit back and
acknowledge Nolan, Bale and Ledger for the massive
achievement they've made and that was bring the
Batman franchise from the grave the other three
movies dug for it. Not only did they resurrect the
franchise but they did with being the truest to
the source material -- something you should
consider picking up. Especially the graphic novel
from which the movie derives it's name from.

Trust me, it's been the end for quite
some time now. Not the end because I had said it
was, but merely because you hadn't been aware of
it. xD

#13:
Crispy
- added 07/23/2008, 04:58 AM
Haha, I must be the only one who liked Batman's
voice. And I'll agree with the thoughts on Ledger,
his Joker was fucking spot on. I hereby apologize
for all the naysaying I did before hand. i could
see him picking up a few awards when the time
comes. And not because "Oh God, he
died," he truly earned it.

#15:
bluemeanie
- added 07/23/2008, 02:31 PM
You're cute. And I am glad you think your
16-year-old daughter could direct a better film
than Tim Burton. You obviously have your head so
far up your own ass that you can't even see what
your family's true talents are. That's fine --
you keep with your Christian Bale support --
that's just fine. At least I can keep solace that
when I saw the film, there were more than a few
people laughing every time he pulled out that
ridiculous voice. Why? Because it's laughable.
And ludicrous. And embarrassing. Maybe that's
why you like it so much...

#16:
The Red Clover
- added 07/23/2008, 03:10 PM
I apologize that I don't swing that way but I do
appreciate the compliment. Though if you intend on
quoting me it says right there, "sixteen year
old brother." He is quite talented but it
doesn't take much talent to out-do someone like
Tim Burton. I enjoyed Bale's performance not
because it was embarrassing, as you would claim,
but because he's a great actor and he did so well
with it. I acknowledge and understand his
portrayal because I am a "fanboy" and
not a critic. You know I wouldn't believe your so
called "credentials" until I realized
that you're just like any other pathetic film
critic -- Not a single person has found your
review useful.

Written like a true
critic, huh. A review about a movie you only
understand on the surface while displaying your
wannabe fan-hood of the franchise. I take solace
in the fact -- and yes, fact, that you're nothing
more then a pompous, ignorant peon with an
unfounded sense of arrogance that borders on
delusions of grandeur. Proof? The fact that while
your review hasn't been useful at all, the review
written by a "fanboy" has been. Resort
to petty insults all you'd like but it only shows
how desperate you are to pull yourself from the
utter beating you've been given.

Reply if you'd like but I've not only made my
point but crushed your's. You're fighting an
up-hill battle you won't win, so tend to your
wounds and seek someone else to debate, someone
more your league -- someone a tad bit lower
towards your own level.

#17:
The Red Clover
- added 07/23/2008, 03:19 PM
Do have a good day, evening, which ever time of
the day you've chosen to read my reply though! :D

PS: Don't look at my lack of a reply
as if you've gotten in the last word. Try and
prove me wrong about my claim of your pompous
behavior instead of lashing out. I am merely done
with you and poor opinion. So while you may
literally get in the last word, "the last
word" was given when you claimed a false
fandom of the franchise while preaching a
"7/10" and a love for Burton. Really
this had been over since then, but I couldn't help
myself toying with a "critic."

#18:
bluemeanie
- added 07/23/2008, 03:24 PM
Awwww...aren't you a sweetie...yes, you've just
obliterated me by basically recycling the same
redundancies I have heard over and over again.
That's what I love is that you idiots never
change...you never get any more intelligible with
your problems with a critical review of something.
All you do is repeat the same things over and
over again. It's like you fucking people have a
club for losers. But, that's fine. It really
doesn't make a difference to me what you think of
one of my reviews...I just love sparring with
morons from time to time. I have plenty of people
who read my work online and in print and they seem
to be pretty okay with what I have to say about
film...so, when a pompous little ass like yourself
comes along and tries to wag his tail in my face,
it tickles me.

You're about as much a
real "Batman" fan as I am a Laker girl.
You're just a poser...a wannabe...the real 'hack'.
Have nothing to do but surf around the net all
day, finding reviews to pick apart because they
don't meet your standard of 'excellence', which
judging by these remarks is probably only half a
notch about "Jury Duty". So, keep up
the good work. It's morons like you who make a
critic's job worth doing.

#19:
bluemeanie
- added 07/23/2008, 03:27 PM
Oh...and the most humorous thing about this whole
ridiculous diatribe is that I actually have this
film a positive review.

#20:
The Red Clover
- added 07/23/2008, 06:24 PM
Hah! If that's the best you can come up with then
I feel sorry for your so called
"subscribers." I do hope your print is a
tad more eligible then your horrendous punctuation
habits here in your replies. Poor thing, so
unaware of when you've been out-classed. xD

#21:
bluemeanie
- added 07/23/2008, 06:59 PM
Oh, child...grow up. Out-classed? Go back to
your WarCraft with all of the other nothings.

#23:
Cryptorchild
- added 07/24/2008, 03:47 AM
Yeah seriously. Just agree to disagree. You
both enjoyed the movie to one degree or another.
Fucking get over it. Damn, you're both acting
like little kids. Anyway, I finally had the
pleasure of watching this movie ther other night.
Firts off, I hate comic book movies. Always have,
always will. I couldn't give two shits about
Batman or any other superhero out there. There
was one reason and one reason only that I saw this
movie and enjoyed it. The Joker. To ME
personally, he stole the movie. I thought he was
amazing. And that's just my opinioin, which to be
honest does not mean anything to anyone. And that
suits me just fine. I really enjoyed this movie a
lot and I would gladly recomend it to anyone.

#24:
Ginose
- added 07/26/2008, 11:40 AM
I know my comics back and forth. I've been
reading "Batman" since early childhood.
I have an undying love of the characters and
stories that few would understand and still
consider me a normal human-being, and I, like
Billy Ray, did enjoy the movie, but it was not a
damn masterpeice... hell, I'll play middle man to
their hillariously pointless argument and say that
Burton's movies weren't fucking amazing, either.
"Batman Returns" was great, but not a
classic worth remembering.
As a fanboy
supreme I STILL managed to judge this movie by
filmmaking quality rather than "OMG
BATMAN/JOKER/TWOFACE ZOMG!?!!/1!/1?1?!"
factor. I wish others would do the same. If you
judge it as an action movie, it's not
incredible... hell, if you judge it as a hardcore
Batman comic-nerd then you'll probablly find even
more things to gripe about.
Speaking of
which, what's all this bullshit about canon? You
want canon? Jack's Joker is much more canon than
Ledger's because, how can I put this... oh yes: HE
WAS A CLOWN! He was a psycho, yes, but a funny
one. A witty one. A psycho-criminal with tons of
camp because that's what gave him personality.
Ledger was, as I stated, merely a psychotic thug.
That's all. I liked it, but I would have liked the
actual Joker much better than this... thing... all
in all, I did like Ledger's performance over
Nicholson's, but that doesn't mean I liked his
charecter more. The biggest kick in the balls to
"real fans" of the comics is how much
the director/writer is willing to sacrifice from
the source material in order to humanize the
characters.
Christ, Burton is not a hack..
he's done... a few good movies... And, I did LIKE
Keaton as Batman, I didn't care for his Wayne,
mostly because there's really not a role I've seen
him in that he doesn't come across as (accidently
or not) too funny for his own good. There wasn't
alot of seriousness in his role as a whole.

Good movie. Not amazing.

And
why am I feeding this fire? Because I'm a damned
nerd, that's why.

- i
loved the movie, but it is not the movie people
seem to think it is. i'd love to have seen it (and
the box office results) in a world where ledger
was still alive. plot holes, unnecessary bloat and
inconsistencies create issues. hong kong sequence,
vigilante subplot and constant use of
"everyone is corrupt!" twists were
excessive.

- "realistic
batman" movies render the character of batman
useless, as evidenced by the fact that the movie
focuses far more on gordon, dent and the joker
than it does on batman. joker still manages to
work in the "realistic" realm of the
movie, whereas batman merely provides the action
center. all superheroes are inherently ludicrous;
removing them from their fantastical habitat only
serves to magnify their ridiculousness. the guy
dresses up as a bat, people.

- nolan
needs to learn how to zoom out. action sequences,
though clearly not the focal point of the movie,
were muddy. would prefer more long shots like
batman gliding over hong kong, or joker hanging
out of the squad car.

- the
"canon" argument is null and void when
dealing with a franchise that is almost 80 years
old. west, burton, miller and timm all produced
wildly different takes on the material, and no one
would call either one into question. (as an aside,
you can't use miller's versions as canon anyway,
since dark knight returns was
"elseworlds.")

- ledger is
the definitive joker, usurping nicholson's
"iconic" version, which isn't that far
removed from the actor's own persona. oldman and
eckhart do amazing work with the unenviable task
of playing straightmen in the face of bale and
ledger. as for bale, we need more bruce wayne,
less batvoice.

- eric roberts!

- all things considered, the movie makes
it easy to ignore its own flaws, even upon second
viewings. not the best movie ever, or even the
best superhero movie ever, but a damn good summer
blockbuster.

also, can someone settle
the argument of whether or not two-face is dead?
i'm on the record as saying he is not. if he IS,
then that's a huge waste of a character that they
spent two and a half hours building up. also, they
base the movie around this guy, and his denoument
is a quick fall off a not-very-high building? this
is why i think he's alive. that, and the fact that
they didn't actually show him being buried or
anything at the memorial. obviously the joker's
resolution was left hanging (ha) due to obvious
circumstances, but i felt that the two-face thing
was way too open-ended. the movie is long anyway,
five minutes of exposition at the end of it
wouldn't have killed anybody.

bluemeanie sucks, although we do pretty much
agree on this movie, so i can't hate on him for
that. he still sucks, though.

In my own opinion it would
seem that Two-Face is not dead. Nolan hinted
earlier in the movie that a fall from that
distance wouldn't kill a man when Batman dropped
Maroni and Maroni fell only to break his ankles.
To be honest I think Dent would have had to fall
on the exposed part of his skull to sustain enough
harm to kill him however Two-Face landed on his
back. Batman almost comments that, "Dent is
dead" while Gordon makes mention of wanting
to "save him."

If Nolan was
to make his epic into a trilogy the logical next
villain would be Two-Face with a secondary villain
that keeps with the "killer" theme.
While he has a huge base of villains to choose
from, so far Nolan has only dealt with murderers
-- the rest are really thieves, just, glorified
thieves. I believe Eckhart did with
Two-Face/Harvey Dent the very same thing Ledger
did with the role of the Joker and that was make
it his own. Eckhart would own the next movie if
Nolan were to take that step.

#29:
Crispy
- added 07/27/2008, 10:44 PM
If you'll remember when Dent attempted to
interrogate one of Joker's thugs, Batman
identified him as a schizophrenic named Jervis
Tetch. Jervis Tetch is the real name of the Mad
Hatter, so that's my prediction for the next
villain.

#30:
Vash
- added 07/28/2008, 12:08 AM
totally didn't catch the mad hatter thing. i've
always wanted him to be in a movie, but i always
figured they'd go for someone like the riddler for
the next one. you never know, though. a lot of the
bat-villains are just take-offs on the joker, so i
hope they pick someone who can really create their
own persona in the nolan series. mad hatter and
riddler are great, but i think they're too close
to the joker to really stand on their own.

#35:
Tristan
- added 07/28/2008, 12:58 AM
Not only is that description inaccurate, but they
say his name in the movie. Foreshadowing? I think
not.

#36:
Nirrad
- added 07/28/2008, 01:02 AM
It's foreshadowing Catwoman, I'll tell you that.
I guarantee the 3rd one is gonna end up like
Spiderman 3. Mark my words. Then we'll have yet
another revision and so on and so forth. What is
the point of this post? Nothing!

#37:
The Red Clover
- added 07/28/2008, 01:03 AM
Aaron Eckhart will undoubtedly reprise his
portrayal as Dent as the main villain. The
secondary villain will probably be another
murderous psycho that compliments Two-Face's
presence. Someone like the Mad Hatter would not go
well in the Nolan vision, nor would the Riddler.
Someone like Deadshot with maybe a possible
appearance by Harley Quinn. Though technically
with how the Riddler beat Green Arrow's ass after
the whole "Hush" thing I'm sure Nolan
could find a way to fit Riddler 2.0 somewhere.
It'd be interesting to see at least.

#38:
Nirrad
- added 07/28/2008, 01:06 AM
I could see the Riddler in the new one. Like he
sends riddles to Batman and the authorities with
clues on his next victim. Then if they fail to
solve the riddle, he kills them............I got
nothing.

#40:
Tristan
- added 07/28/2008, 01:12 AM
I'd love to see Tom Elliot make his way into the
movies, but I think they'd save that for the 4th
or 5th instalment. And by that time, it most
likely won't even be Bale or Nolan anymore. It
just seems like they'd have to exhaust all the
other characters first, before diving into the
newer and less popular ones.

#48:
Tristan
- added 07/28/2008, 01:25 AM
According to Wikipedia it is. However, like I
said before, the little description on Wikipedia
isn't even accurate when referencing the scene in
the movie, let alone it being Tetch. It's just
some stupid fanboy being a douche.

#49:
The Red Clover
- added 07/28/2008, 01:26 AM
Oh! Wtf, I thought someone was disputing the Mad
Hatter's identity or something. I'm about to watch
the movie again because I am a filthy pirate so I
can attempt to see if that was the case. If it was
I don't think it foreshadows anything because if
it had been Tetch then it was a third rate actor
just portraying an easter egg for the fans.

#50:
The Red Clover
- added 07/28/2008, 01:27 AM
Sorry for jumping in with what I had said, I was
obviously lost. Lol.

#51:
Edd
- added 07/28/2008, 02:17 PM
I've seen this movie 3 times now, and the guys
name is Thomas Shiff.

#55:
Greg Follender
- added 08/10/2008, 03:51 AM
I found the movie to be enjoyable... but not
nearly the bombshell that everyone was ranting
about.

(Let's ignore the fact that
Nolan has decided to portray Wayne as a costumed
meathead instead of a calculating detective and
his choice to reduce the comic's inventive sleuth
to an appropriating army surplus warhorse)

Story was serviceable, but not
particularly tight or overly compelling... and the
action sequences were fairly by the
close/quick-edit textbook. Nice camera work
though... and i must admit that Aaron Eckhart
really shined as Harvey Dent. His slow burn into
his villainous alter-ego was far more compelling
than the over-the-top Ledger joker. Don't get me
wrong, folks... Heath did a GREAT job as the clown
prince of crime... but his portrayal was
predictably forced. There wasn't a single moment
onscreen when i wasn't fully aware of what he was
going to do next. Let's face it... if you don a
face full of terrifying grease-paint, are shot
with intense filtered camera angles, and your
scripted dialogue comes littered with some of the
best one-liners in the film... you're going to
come off like a champ! He (Ledger) did a great
job... but the way that film was shot and
scripted, you could put a chimp in that make-up
and he'd be suitably terrifying...

Bale was easily as wooden as he was in the last
film... and to be fair, he had less to work with.
This was more about the villains, i suppose... but
if history (or Tim Burton) has taught us anything,
it is that focusing more on the secondary players
to the detriment of the main character often leads
to cinematic disaster. This film evaded that usual
story bloat... but the fact that Nolan felt he had
to cram the totality of the Dent/Two-face saga
into this film once the Joker was dealt with bodes
dangerously for future sequels...

All
in all... a good superhero flick... and an
intriguing Batman interpretation.
But the
Bat-suit needs to go... it makes a cool character
look like a clumsy rubbery dolt...
7/10

#56:
Strait Killa
- added 11/13/2008, 07:25 PM
A good movie, no doubt. I enjoyed it ten times
more than i did Batman Begins. But I still can't
even begin to imagine how it could be ranked #4
overall of the greatest movies of all time on
IMDB.com. And since it is, I can't help but
believe that this is the most overrated movie I
have ever seen

#57:
George Snow
- added 12/19/2008, 06:41 PM
I grew up on Adam West as Batman. We even made a
special trip to the City to see the movie opening
day. I had the Robin Halloween costume and would
jump off our steps saying POW and ZAP, humming the
theme. But, I've never fully appreciated the new
Batman movies. I thought the original with
Nicholson was excellent but too dark for my
Batman.

I never made it through the
entire Batman Begins and Batman's voice when in
costume sounds like a bad impression of Clint
Eastwood. Ledger did a great job, but if he didn't
die before this movie came out, the feelings of a
brilliant performance wouldn't be resonating so
loudly. He was excellent, and considering his true
accent, he was phenomenal. But, about an hour and
twenty minutes into the movie I checked the box to
see how long the movie was, and when I saw it was
two and a half hours long, I almost had a
heart-attack. WAY TOO LONG!!

One
question: Batman had no problem at all killing bad
guys. He did it throughout the movie. Why didn't
he just let the Joker fall?

As The
Fecal Kid says: He's a rabid fan, so I fully
understand why he loves this movie.

#58:
Nirrad
- added 01/22/2009, 10:27 AM
Well, it looks like Heath is getting nominated
for best supporting actor. We'll see how that pans
out. As for the other awards, TDK isn't nominated
for any of them.

Okay first things first. I'm
sick of the whole "Nolan's better than
Butron, Ledger was better than Nicholson, Bale is
better than Keaton" crap. THEY ARE COMPLETLY
DIFFERENT MOVIES WITH COMPLETLY DIFFERENT ACTORS
AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DIRECTORS!!!

I have a soft spot for Tim Butron's
"Batman" and "Batman Returns"
I have loved this movies since I was a little kid.
Sure they might seemed a little dated now but they
were the orginal and some would whisper the best
(I do mean whisper. Wouldn't want the fanboys
bursting a blood vessel would we?)

I
thought these movies were excellent. And I thought
Keaton made a great Bruce Wayne, not so much a
great Batman.

I then proceeded to
hate every Batman film Burton didn't make, until
"Batman Begins" came along

Now I really liked this film, and its subsequent
sequel "The Dark Knight". Not as much as
Tim Burton's first 2 Batman movies, but still
liked them a lot. My only gripe with this movie is
I am still not feeling Christian Bale as Bruce
Wayne. Sure his Batman is okay, but lets be honest
his Bruce Wayne just comes across as...bland. Not
enough quirk or spark for my taste. Maybe that's
just because I feel Christian Bale could barely
act his way out of a wet paper bag, or maybe just
because he is a giant douche. Regardless many
people seem to like him in these movies, so I'll
play along just to keep the peace.

As
for Heath Ledger's portrayl of The Joker, I
thought it was excellent. I also thought Jack
Nicholson's portrayl was excellent. And If I hear
one more person say that one is better than the
other I will stab them in the neck with a
sharpened pencil. Two amazing actors both playing
a great character, both giving it its own unique
spin. It's the fact that they both played it
differently that makes The Jokers portrayl so
great in two different movies. Who cares who you
prefer, enjoy both and shut up.

As
for the actual movie, 9/10

#60:
Rest Easy Soul
- added 01/24/2010, 08:22 PM
I didn't read any of the above comments but I
will try to give my own personal view.

I think this movie was great but was WAY too
long and had plenty of dialogue driven scenes that
were very unnecessary. A few plot holes yes, but
it's just another movie being nitpicked to death
by everyone.

When I saw it in theaters
I was blown away and awe struck and of course my
expectations were far exceeded, but after all the
hype dies down it's just another 5-star movie. Not
one of my top 10, but definitely a cinematic
accomplishment and among the top 20 (debatable)

Other than my minor complaints it's
still a very good movie. 9/10

#61:
Lucid Dreams
- added 05/25/2010, 01:52 AM
Aside from the very small things that I didn't
like on here I will have to say it was perfect for
me. It had my two favorite bad guys from the
comics and they did such a great job on the
acting. 10/10